Skip to main content

About your Search

English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
Feb 24, 2013 2:30am PST
mr. st. croix and his staff, his deputy director, the entire ethics commission, i mean ethics department staff, more than likely had access to that file. they knew what was in that file. withholding it under misguided interpretation of 1040, and c3-699.13, all of that was willful. i think miss herrick made the recommendation that the material should be released, knowing that it was willfully withheld. that it existed in the file all along. and that had you, as commissioners, done an incamera review of the entire file enstead of just an incamera review of 20 pages after -- three months after you made your decision on october 22nd. you could have looked at that file incamera before october 22nd. and you may have none then that it was willfully withheld then and maybe you would have reached a different outcome when you considered my case. instead, mr. hur prejudiced the october 22nd hearing. which with all due respect, sir was willful prejudice. >> dr. derrick kerr again. another issue that comes up with these complaints and investigations is whether the ethics commission or the
Feb 4, 2013 6:30pm PST
we have not heard from mr. st. croix and as i suggested earlier and under the regulations that were adopted two months ago and took effect, if this matter were coming brand new know we would have had a report and recommendation from the staff and a chance for the complainant and respendent to speak. we have heard from the complainant and we have not heard from the respondent and it would help me to hear from mr. so st. croix the rationale for disclosure. so i would encourage you to ask him that. >> other questions from the commissioners? commissioner studley, you wanted to wait until there was public comment. is there anything else that you want to share is in ? >> no, i agree with you and commissioner liu. i don't find this to be willful. since the understanding -- that this was part of the investigative file and the degree to which it could have well been made with good faith and that we have teased apart this particular category of communication within the ethics staff as being the one place where there might be documents that were appropriately disclosed suggests to me that was
Feb 19, 2013 4:30pm PST
to be not particularly useful as a publicly disclosed document. thank you, mr. st. croix. >> is there a motion with respect to whether we should find the failure to release these three documents in redacted form to be a willful violation of the sunshine ordinance? >> i move that we find that the failure to release these documents was not a willful failure -- a willful violation of the sunshine ordinance. >> is there a second? >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? motion passed. i also want to say in response it to a number of the members of the public that i understand the frustration with not being able to see what we get to see, what the controller's office sees, and what the commissioner itself sees. these investigations are fact-intensive. the commissioner spends a lot of time on them, and i would really like for you to be able to know and to prove that to you. we are bound by rules of non-disclosure. we are bound by the charter and state law and there is good reason for confidentialitis, i think as i set at the last meeting. we need to protect whistle-blowers and
Feb 17, 2013 8:00am PST
comment? hearing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? there are none. mr. st. croix, can you make the announcements? >> finding of probable cause for ethics commission complaint 13-111013, at its regular meeting of january 28th, 2013, in the matter of ethics complaint 13-1103,the ethics commission made a determination that there is probably cause to believe the following violations of the san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code occurred and that the respondents committed them. one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 16 subsection a2 for reporting and receiving a loan to his candidate committee in excess of $120,000. two, one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 16, subsection c, for repaying aloan amount in excess of $120,000. 3 one violation of california government code section 81 104, subdivision a has incorporated into local law by san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 106 for not accurately reporting either the correct amount loan or the date that the loa
Feb 4, 2013 5:30pm PST
next item on the agenda is changes to our enforcement regulations, mr. st. croix would you like to introduce the matters? >> these are largely housekeeping matters in following up on the changes that the commission has already made. and are pretty straightforward and i think self-explanatory. >> there are three decision points. the first is shall the commission approve the addition of section 3d as set forth on page 3 of the enforcement regulations? the second is to approve the deletion of other references to the sunshine ordinance and the enforcement regulations. and the third is to change the definition of "business day" to comply with the sunshine regulations that we propagated previously. these seem to me to be pretty straightforward administrative changes. is there any discussion on these? anything from the city attorney? public comment on this item? >> [tkpwao-frpl/], my name is dr. derrick kur, my comment is not specific to the sunshine ordinance modifications, but does refer to section 6a of your enforcement guidelines. my recollection is that the ken civil grand jury when
Feb 19, 2013 3:30pm PST
your agenda. >> mr. st. croix, can you respond to dr. kur's question about 6a? >> dr. kerr is absolutely correct the bar is now one commissioner member can calendar a complaint. i'm not sure why this copy went out, but it's typographical or an old copy, but it's one that has already been voted on and in effect. >> thank you. any other discussion from the commissioners on this agenda item? is there a motion to approve the changes to the regulations for investigations and enforcement proceedings? >> is moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? hearing none the motion passes. the next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on reports submitted by lisa herrick formerly of the san jose city attorney's office. as you will recall and was referenced previously, on october 22, 2012 we held a hearing on this matter relating to ethics complaints brought by mr. shaw. we also reviewed and considered paper submitted by mr. shaw and heard argument from mr. shaw on the matter. during that hearing, we asked miss herrick to review a number of determination if they
Feb 17, 2013 7:00am PST
herrick identified are presumptively public records. and so mr. st. croix has to identify any particular exemption that you may now be attempting to rely on. there is nothing in the charter as miss herrick admits that exempts those emails. they are emails. they are not part of the investigative file. second, the non-internal emails, which miss herrick wrongly claims are confidential under section f1.110b are not, in fact, covered by that section. although she underlined the operative description of the confidential documents, the word "communications" or any word that would describe an email is missing. under the constitutional requirements for public access, these statutes must be read narrowly. thus, the description of what is confidential can't be expanded to cover communications; which are a completely animal in the investigative file, which was the subject of my complaint. those should also be disclosable, unless otherwise exempt and once an investigation is closed i maintain it becomes a public record and the entire file needs to be released. this commission should ask for an expla
Feb 11, 2013 5:00am PST
mr. st. croix sees himself, obviously, as a situation where everybody else in the city is mostly honest, and i'm the only one who is completely corrupt. well, the trouble is everybody else in city hall sees themselves exactly that same way. let everybody else be honest mr. st. croix sees himself a sleazy corporate executive running the ethics commission. well, it doesn't start there. if there is no ethics at the ethics commission, there is no ethics. it has do with all kinds of disclosure i would like to get, but if he is just going to tell them before the investigation, what is the use? >> any other public comment? is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. [ gavel ] >> welcome everyone to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee, regular meeting for wednesday, feb6th, 2013. my name is supervisor mark farrell, i am the chair of this committee and we're joined by supervisor eric mar, the vice-chair and supervisor avalos and joined by board president david chiu. i
Feb 4, 2013 7:00pm PST
you want. and she said that mr. st. croix would call me. i came back a week later to find out why no one had called me and she said that the mayor would be complying starting next month, even though the notice period is 15 days under the law. i asked a series of questions, has there been into complaints so far? do you have any documents relative to? and to seech question she responded i'm not clear on that, after i had gotten that same answer four or five times it was clear to me this was just another cover-up, even before the facts had been established. you have to realize that this comes on top of the abuse and dishonest that we get every place else. i mean, if the mayor's office is just a gang, and the library commission is just a gang, and there is no reason why you should be socially responsibility, because the ethics commission is just a gang, then we're just going around in circles. you have to realize that this is, in fact, cover-up. mr. st. croix sees himself, obviously, as a situation where everybody else in the city is mostly honest, and i'm the only one who is complete
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)